Education Reform

[Just-Legal]

I'm currently studying for my Batchelor's Degree in Politics and Media (although its looking like being soley Politics after this year). I had a lovely junior (5-11) school experience, testing stupidly well. I loved Junior school, it was a creative and balanced environment and they fostered my love of learning (well, apart from the times they had to physcially remove my non-class related book from me *snickers*)

Highschool was completely different. I attended two, the first was more concerned about stopping the sixth-former's smoking behind the bins and making sure whover had been beaten up that day didn't bruise too badly than teaching.

Second was a "sink" school - a school where everyone who had been kicked out of the other schools was sent. My parents tried, repeatedly, to get me out of there, and failed. I got *bored* and became disruptive (my first year, just to make up the numbers, I got put in the lowest band for all my classes. I had gone from being one of the brightest to being put with those who couldn't even READ. In my English classes I ended up tutoring some of the boys in basic language skills, and was cutting Maths all the time because I got impatient with everyone else. LUCKILY they moved me up the next year)

I got reasonable exam results and went on to a good sixth-form college, then University. I dropped out after a month - I was totally unprepared for something that required not just learning things by *rote*, and I think that is where a lot of our schools in the UK let us down - they don't allow for independant learning, or encourage it.

I've been lucky enough to get accepted back into Uni and I'm really buckling down this time. Would I say I've been failed by the system? Yes and no. Highschool was a nightmare I never, ever want to repeat, but my junior school was wonderful - if they could copy the principles over and adapt them to suit seniors we'd be getting somewhere.

AND:

This post should be mandatory reading! <grin>

I have Amicus on block. Oopsie.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sounds good to me...the 12th century carried the beginning of the neoplatonic rebirth that flowered in the Renaissance, an age of true education in the deepest sense of the word.

For the upper 20% of the population in socioeconomic terms, yes, the Renaissance was a brilliant rebirth. For the rest, mostly business as usual.

 

[rgraham666]

For the upper 20% of the population in socioeconomic terms, yes, the Renaissance was a brilliant rebirth. For the rest, mostly business as usual.

Why do you think he's so fond of it? Ideologues never advocate a system in which they are the ones who suffer.

And I don't think fondly of Plato. Betrayed Socrates, in my opinion.

Socrates went out every day and questioned all the people of Athens, urged them to think about what they were doing and why.

Plato started an academy, accepted only 'proper' people into it, and taught them the 'answers'.

The former was the philosophical root of democracy, the latter of authouritarianism.

Don't like Plato at all.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think both models have their value. I'm not a fan of "mainstreaming" in the "jam everyone into one class" extreme for a variety of reasons. Yes, it means that people who need extra help don't get it. It also means that people who could rise to an extra challenge don't get it either. I think there's a place for institutions that cater to a sub-section of the population, whether it's by interest (like "magnet" schools for art or sport), achievement level, learning style, or what have you. It's one way to help people get more individualized educations.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

It never ceases to amuse and amaze me. Were I to say to you: I will tax your property, all your property, even if you do not have children, even if you are too old to have children, even if you cannot produce a child, I will tax you anyway and not for a small amount either.

I have pondered this idea. Should we only pay taxes to support those programs that immediately benefit each particular individual? How many valuable programs would be lost because of this "But what can it do for me?" mentality?

Further, should you be stupid enough to have children, then, at an age I choose, I will force you to send that child to a school of my choosing. I will pick the exact time the child must arrive and depart, I will determine where he sits, how he sit, what he eats and drinks and when. I will insist upon acceptable clothing and cleanliness and behaviour.

If the children don't go to school, what would you recommend we do with them? Put them back to work? Have them sit at home? If they don't send them to public school, where? Private schools which a vast number of families would never be able to afford? And arrival, departure and lunch times are a problem? When a business dictates a schedule, you find that acceptable. When a school does it, it becomes a conspiracy in social engineering. And every school should have every possible food item so no child is forced to eat from a specific menu? How is that even possible. You are basically proposing that there be no rules for children under the age of 18 here.

Then, I will teach him what I choose, in the manner I choose and determine his success or failure by my methods. You must have my permission to even visit the child while I am teaching him and special permission if the child is to be absent for even one hour in the schedule I have set for him.

Again, so we should teach anyone anything that they or their parents aren't interested in? And again, we should just let children not show up whenever they want to be elsewhere with no ramifications?

You will have no control over the content of his education, you will have no control over those he goes to school with and no control over what habits I choose to instill in the child.

Parents actually do have choices. They are quite capable of teaching their own habits. You make it sound like having multiple sources of input are a bad thing.

No matter what your complaint, I will teach your child to be tolerant of all racial and ethnic differences, I will teach your child sexual and gender equality and from a very early age, teach your child about his sexuality and health and sanitation of his body because you as a parent are too stupid to realize the importance of this education.

Leave it to a NeoCon to make teaching tolerance to be a bad thing. And if parents are in fact unwilling to teach anything about sexual behavior, equality or sanitation, then the child should in fact have a place he or she CAN learn such things.

I will also teach your child the evils of the system he lives in, emphasizing personal sacrifice for the good of society over individual selfishness, and guide your child along successful lines of thinking so that he may become a productive citizen.

I'm not even sure what you are complaining/commenting on here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

For those of you who like to use the word 'mandatory', I wish you had a clue as to the meaning of the word.

I use that word from time to time. Luckily, I have had a successful public education, so I DO know what it means.

Gads, next you will be advocating 'mandatory' public service to prune your prissy pristine wilderness and why not conscription in the slim chance there is another 'free' people out there somewhere that you wish to 'manditorily' bring under control.

Nice complete and total stretching of logic.

Such an innocent thing, isn't it? Public education, who'dathunkit was so dangerous?

And the alternative is?

amicus...[/QUOTE]

Lets just through the baby out with the bathwater and hope it can survive in the wild.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think both models have their value. I'm not a fan of "mainstreaming" in the "jam everyone into one class" extreme for a variety of reasons. Yes, it means that people who need extra help don't get it. It also means that people who could rise to an extra challenge don't get it either. I think there's a place for institutions that cater to a sub-section of the population, whether it's by interest (like "magnet" schools for art or sport), achievement level, learning style, or what have you. It's one way to help people get more individualized educations.

In my grade school, they had the track system.

Basically, there were four "homeroom" classes in each grade. After the first grade, the top 25% went into one calss, while the bottom 25% went into antoher and the middle fifty went into two. The top 25% were given a more challengeing and accelerated cirricula, the bottom 25 got a much slower cirricula, including a lot of coverage of the things they didn't handle well from first grade. The middle two got an inbetween cirricula.

Third grade was the same, but it was again set on your grades. So the very top portion of the middle classe would bein the faster track, while the portion in the fast track who hadn't donw well would be in the middle. the top portion of the slow class would move to the middle, while those in the middle who had had a lot of trouble would be in the slower track. those in the slow track who had had significant problems were tested to see if they needed special help. those in the top portion of the fast track were tested to see if they needed the gifted program.

Your average kid, actually bounced between the fast track and the medium or the slow and medium. Once the kids who were gifted were identified they usually went to another school that handled the gifted classes. Likewise the special needs kids went to the same school, as it also handled the special ed classes.

A few kids mae fast track, but never qualified as gifted. A few went slow, but didn't have special needs, a few were middle of the road, but the majority bounced between the three. And there were a few oddballs like myself.

I was so far ahead of my peers in reading comp that I maintined the grades to stay fast, but every year I fell further and further behind in math, cause I hated it. My fifth & sixth grade years, I took all fast track, but sat in on the medium track math classes instead of the fast track.

The system, to my mind worked very well. Keeping those interested challenged, while allowing those with trouble to catch up. the problem with the system was, it was only used 1 through 6. In seventh grade, you wnt to school basd on your ehtnicity. My next door neighbor ended up being busses all the way acros town, while I ended up being bussed halfway across town. The kids acros the street went to the secondary school that was within walking distance of our subdivision.

I found myself in seventh grade taking classes that were no more advanced than my fifth/sixth grade classes had been. I also found myself in classes with gang members, including several kids who had spent time in juvie and were thus up to three years behind their peers. It was a fairly dangerous envirnment and not very condusive to learning. there were no tracks, no etra challenge for those who needed it nor help for those who were falling behind.

It was almost like going from a school where they cared about you to a school where you were just a number.

Needless to say, I spent the rest of my highschool years in a private school.

 

[amicus]

I have pondered this idea. Should we only pay taxes to support those programs that immediately benefit each particular individual? How many valuable programs would be lost because of this "But what can it do for me?" mentality?



If the children don't go to school, what would you recommend we do with them? Put them back to work? Have them sit at home? If they don't send them to public school, where? Private schools which a vast number of families would never be able to afford? And arrival, departure and lunch times are a problem? When a business dictates a schedule, you find that acceptable. When a school does it, it becomes a conspiracy in social engineering. And every school should have every possible food item so no child is forced to eat from a specific menu? How is that even possible. You are basically proposing that there be no rules for children under the age of 18 here.



Again, so we should teach anyone anything that they or their parents aren't interested in? And again, we should just let children not show up whenever they want to be elsewhere with no ramifications?



Parents actually do have choices. They are quite capable of teaching their own habits. You make it sound like having multiple sources of input are a bad thing.



Leave it to a NeoCon to make teaching tolerance to be a bad thing. And if parents are in fact unwilling to teach anything about sexual behavior, equality or sanitation, then the child should in fact have a place he or she CAN learn such things.



I'm not even sure what you are complaining/commenting on here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~`



I use that word from time to time. Luckily, I have had a successful public education, so I DO know what it means.



Nice complete and total stretching of logic.



And the alternative is?

amicus...

Lets just through the baby out with the bathwater and hope it can survive in the wild.[/QUOTE]


Well actually you made up that alleged quote at the end but I don't mind.

But, you did expend some effort in your attempt to redicule my thoughts as if they were far out into space, whereas the real answer to what the 'alternative' to forced, tax supported education is merely the free market place.


"...Private schools which a vast number of families would never be able to afford?..."

You know, you and others say that as if it were fact and so obvious to everyone that even the blind should see it. That the free market penalizes the poor. Actually, it is just the opposite. The free market provides lower prices and quality services to all levels of society through efficiency and supply and demand.

So, I refute your assertion, totally and suggest that a free market place for education would offer better and more education and that people would quickly learn to choose those sources that provided the education they desire for their children.

And somehow, you and many others seem to think that children are a resource of society to be managed and harvested quite like trees or mines, which you also seem to 'claim' as public property.

Won't you socialist assholes ever learn? YOU DON'T OWN THE WORLD, YOU DON'T OWN THE RESOURCES!

Land, trees, mines, lakes, rivers, forests, minerals underground are all real property. In a free nation, individuals own those resources. In a free nation, peoples rights to raise their children as they choose are protected, not abridged by socialist dreamers and planners.

"...Leave it to a NeoCon to make teaching tolerance to be a bad thing. And if parents are in fact unwilling to teach anything about sexual behavior, equality or sanitation, then the child should in fact have a place he or she CAN learn such things..."

I can almost see your self righteous smirk as the Martin Luther King group continues to protest with middle finger raised at the world of the whities. That same smirk for the femi-nazi's who have basically destroyed the family unit.

I call into open question your success in forcing integration of ethnic and racial minorities, I fail to see what great good you have accomplished when a city like New Orleans is 68 percent black. I fail to see your success in the feminine quest for 'equal rights' when half of all marriages fail and half of the children never know their father.

So gloat and smirk your silly self into oblivion all the while thinking you have done or support some great movement. In essence, you have destroyed the best parts of a culture by your 'social planning' and enforced morality. White women reproduce at a rate of 1.2 percent, not even replacement value while blacks and hispanics are up around 4 to 5 percent.

Congratulations!

You left wingers disgust me.


amicus...

 

[Guest]

Ami, ami, ami.

Wow.

There is a great deal of anger spewing from you these days.

It is always entertaining to read your posts, but ever so much more when they quickly dissolve into women-hating, minority-bashing drivel.

Congrats.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Amicus,

The free market is not always the best answer. having worked in telco, I'll use it as an example.

In the wireless portion of telco, the free market works very well. To a degree, it also works well for highspeed connections, like dsl, adsl, isdn and cable.

But for land lines, it didn't work at the start and is, increasingly, not working now. The reason is simple, land line telco requitres that you string or bury cables. Ever seen a picture of new york city or chicago, turn of the entruy? individual ompanies strung their own cable, so the area just above the streets was a maze of competing phone and electric cables. it was dangerous and produced duplication of services all over the place, wasteing resources.

Nowadays, the baby bell that was spun off of ATT owns the cable. Others just rent the lines. So when sprint or MCI promise crystal clear service, it's crap. Because they just rent pairs from the old ATT affiliate.

LDMC is now a nightmare. If Mci or sprint or whoever the local provider is experiences a truble on their lines, they have to pass it on to the old baby bell to be repaired. Needless to say, those troubles are all shoved to the end of the que. You don't draw a rented affilate's trouble until it has hit the PSC limit on age or all of the baby belle's troubles in your area are done.

The affilate has to install it's own frame and generating equiptment in the baby bell's CO. All of them, then, produce DT. All have to generate that DT, so you get a waste in resources in the production of DT. Since DT is electric, they are each burning power that duplicates service.

In short, for local land line communications, a single provider is far more efficent. Only one Dt need be generated. There is continuity between your biller and the guys who actually go out and fix the lines. LDMC has one set of coherent pair assignments. troubles are dealt with in order they are recieved, rather than piecemeal. There is a standard rate of charges, rather than different scales for different providers.


Your assertion that the free market would provide better education is not neccissarily true. It isn't neccissarily false either. But the underlying assertion, that the free market is the best response to all service provision is false.

In telco, local non-exceptional service, is best handled by one company, with it's rate schedules standardized, it's record keeping uniform, and it's service based on order recieved. You can also see this in reail schedules back when every line used local time and did it's own maintenance and set it's own schedules. Some services do function better under uniform guidance.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Addressing an earlier post: the problems with enacting an apprenticeship-only education system in the modern world are seen most clearly when one examines the period at which apprenticeship was phased out in favor of universal public education.

In the early and mid 1800's, during a period of rapid technologial growth, serious wide-scale problems of poverty and unemployment arose from the general reliance on traditional apprenticeship training. Because most people who worked for a living were trained for a single trade, whole sectors of the marketplace were left unemployable by changes in technology. The silk weavers were one of the more famous examples in England; they were members of a skilled trade that took years of training to master, and they were dropped into poverty nearly overnight by the industrialization of their jobs. The problem with profession-based apprenticeship systems as practiced then was that people invested a substantial quantity of time and resources learning only one trade. If anything happened to that trade, you ended up with people who had invested heavily in a skill that was now worthless. Thus, the idea of universal general education. It's a means of providing workers with a more flexible education that can suit them out for a variety of jobs, and of providing workplaces with workers capable of fulfilling many roles.

Any modern apprenticeship system, I would argue, would need to be - and inevitably is - drastically different to the old model. Every modern apprenticeship system I've encountered, with the exception of those practiced by groups who eschew a modern technological lifestyle (Amish, some Native Americans, etc.), assumes that the apprentice has already completed a high school education. I think that's a wise approach. Our rate of technological change is swifter than ever; the window for being a VCR repairman, for instance, opened only a few decades ago and is already closing. Vacuum tube designer and manufacturer went the same way. Any approach to training people for employment in the modern world must take into account the need for flexibility and the increasing knowledge base both available and needed.

There is always, of course, the parsimonious approach: the apprenticeship system is the cheapest for the state, so why should they bother with teaching people varied skills and abilities? If they choose professions that fail, that's their choice. There are two answers to this. I shan't bother much with the humanitarian one - that poverty is misery, and that compassion for our brothers should lead us to try to help them. I'm given to understand that in some circles, this sentiment is considered a bizarre aberration. I shall confine myself, then, to this observation: that people deprived of the means to gain a living and some pleasure in their lives do not stop wanting these things simply because they have no legal means to get them. If they have no legal means to get them, they will find other means. Thus we find the young man interviewed by Henry Mayhew some 150 years ago in Spitalfields, the slum housing the wreck of what was left of the silk weavers. His father, the young man said, had spent years learning and diligently practicing a trade - and look where it had gotten him. The young man avowed that he knew a trick worth two of that; he'd chosen a much better profession. He was a thief, and he looked to see no technological innovation likely to put him out of work. I think the message clear: even if one assumes that one will be fortunate enough not to be in the masses of people dropped into poverty for want of education, we'd best work to instruct them how to earn a living honestly if we don't want them crawling in our windows to steal the fruits of our own labors.

 

[amicus]

Ami, ami, ami.

Wow.

There is a great deal of anger spewing from you these days.

It is always entertaining to read your posts, but ever so much more when they quickly dissolve into women-hating, minority-bashing drivel.

Congrats.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


A modicum of mad from time to time, yes.

As you well should know, I am neither a 'woman-hater' or a 'minority basher', but I guess it is easier to dismiss if you categorize me as such.

Few would deny that the results of slavery have been a 'problem' in America, almost since the beginning of the nation.

There is a series currently running on television about 'The Presidents' where each one, his time and life is explored. One I saw just the other night about President Monroe, includes the little tidbit of information that "Monrovia" in Africa, was a nation created for African slaves who had been brought to America to return to.

The slavery question was one of the reasons it took so long for the original 13 colonies to ratify the new constitution; slave labor was essential for the economy of the south and the southern colonies would not accept abolishing slavery, while the northern colonies wanted to do away with it.

The 'woman' problem, did not begin in America, as you well know, women throughout time have been second class citizens.

So, the purpose of the above is to drag from you at least the admission that full equality for women and minorities is in fact a 'problem' and have been for a long long time.

Amendments to the constitution formalized equal rights for women and minorities, but did that solve the problem?

I think it did not as both women and minorities have been through the courts for over half a century pursuing an extension and clarification of just what 'equality', actually means.

You and I view government somewhat differently. You feel it is the province of government to 'manage' the social structure of the nation. The problem with that is that just whose vision of that 'social structure' to you want to enforce?

Your major problem is your self righteous certainty that progressive tinkering with society is a good thing and produces good results.

I am not so convinced you are even close to being right. Your second problem is that you get all hissy and defensive when your self righteous perch is questioned.

While I truly do accept the phrase, 'all men are created equal', I interpret that to mean, 'under the law' that all men (and women) will have identical 'equal' rights defended by government.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that government has the obligation to 'enforce' those equal rights by activist legislation for women and minorities. Even though that 'enforcement' violates guaranteed rights of others.

Aside from your muddleheaded thinking about economic systems, you seem to think it is proper to force others to think and act as you do.

While all men are equal under the law, all men are not equal in ability, indeed they vary greatly. Not only within an ethnic or gender grouping, but world wide based on geneology.

I think you know that, as it is blatantly apparent to all, but you tend to ignore it when you deny the innate and inherent differences between genders and ethnic groups.

You and many others tend to forget that America was basically a 'white man's nation', like it or not, that is the fact. Our heritage is European, our founding documents and accumulated laws reflect that.

Myself and some others I suspect, rather tire of hearing you and others put down 'white america' as NeoCon or 'far right', when all that is, is a reflection of our past, our heritage, our laws and customs.

Diversity is a marvelous thing, I think; the possibilities are limitless. I don't watch the NFL or the NBA anymore, my standing joke was, "I root for the team with the white guy on it"

With 13 percent of the population being black, fully 80 percent plus of the starting line up for all, repeat all, NBA and NFL teams is black.

On the social level, that provides status and wealth for a part of the black community. It also provides an inspiration for black athletes who can see in reality that they might indeed reach fame and wealth through sports.

What is does for white athletes is debatable.

What it should tell everyone, is that (all else being equal) athletes of african heritage perform better than those with a caucasian heritage. That does not surprise me.

What does surprise me is the social left not acknowledging black physical superiority as fact. But then, if they did, they would also have to acknowledge that african heritage seems to test about 15 percent lower on the mental scales.

Just a couple examples to try to get through to you that there are innate and inherent differences in ethnic groups.

Once one recognizes those differences, it becomes an act of futility to attempt to enforce equality, a 'quota system' or 'affirmative action', to equalize opportunity.

The left meddles in community life, forcing different ethnic groups to live and work and attend school together and then pride yourselves and gloat over your phoney liberalism when in reality what you have done is to create even more separation and anger.

Okay...thas enough....


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Two most interesting posts by Colleen and Shanglan...

I understand your point of view Colly. However, the area of 'public utilities' has long been a difficult area to comprehend with a free enterprise system as a base.

It troubled the early development of crude oil transportation in Pennsylvania, (an interesting history) it was extremely troublesome in the beginnings of the railroad system, and electrical power and distribution, along with natural gas, water and sewer services.

There are problems with monopolies, some just 'perceived' problems and not real ones as competition always thins out the field.

In a formal study of economics, there are dozens of theories and models about how such conflicts could be resolve and yet maintain a 'mostly free' economy.

It goes even deeper with books like Upton Sinclairs attack on the meat packing industry, The Jungle, I think it was called.

Advances in technology also create problems and difficulties, as Shanglan points out, times change and new methodologies come into play.

Because macro economics is so complex, it appears to many that the apparent solution to all the problems is to bascially 'nationalize' the entire economy so that it can be managed with specific goals in mind.

That has been tried in many places and inevitably fails.

A 'mixed' economy, in many varied ways has also been tried, but seems always to trend towards a more controlled system, eventually failing as the command economies do.

I unfailing advocate a 'free' economy because it reflects the basic philosophy of individual freedom that I hold as basic to a civilized society.

You say that a free enterprise system is not always the best avenue to follow, I must assert that a free enterprise system is the only avenue if one values human individual freedom.

I do not fully understand the technology you explained and why it cannot function in a free market place, but I suggest that wireless broadband will moot the question in a very short time.

Shanglan, I need to read your post again, but in advocating a private enterprise educational system, I do not necessarily embrace the 'apprenticeship' concept as a solution to those young people who may not wish to continue an education and choose to work instead.

It is not just an ideology or 'belief' that brings me always to the defense of the free exchange of goods and services between peoples, it is rather a philosophical axiom to me that freedom is essential to human dignity, I have never doubted that and doubt I ever will.

So, Colly, Shang...whatever problems emerge in a free enterprise system, logic and reason tells me that 'free' people can resolve those issues without resorting to the use of force.


amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

For very personal reasons, this thread has upset the living hell out of me.

Most sickening was the people advocating going back to a system that threw me out before I was old enough to realise that I could have fought back.

So as I often do, I went to the book that gives me the most comfort in hard times. Here's what the authour had to say.

EDUCATION, PUBLIC The single most important element in the maintenance of a democratic system.

The better the citizenry as a whole are educated, the wider and more sensible public participation, debate and social mobility will be. Any serious rivalry from private education will siphon off the élites and thus fatally weaken both the drive and the financing of the state system.

That a private system may be able to offer to a limited number of students the finest education in the world is irrelevant. Highly sophisticated élites are the easiest and least original thing a society can produce. The most difficult and most valuable is a well-educated populace.

What happens when those who have power concentrate on their own training is hardly surprising. A study in 1993 suggested that almost half of America’s adults were functionally illiterate. This explains why England and the United States, having made such essential contributions to the rise of democracy, have ever greater difficulty making their systems work.

What remains incomprehensible is the apparent failure of public education through out the West. Teeth gnash every day over the effects of electronic communication and weakening family structures. Yet all we do is fiddle with the content of courses and agonize over teaching methods.

Specialists in the science of education hold great sway. They are the management consultants of the adolescent mind. But the quantity of teachers is constantly being reduced, as are the budgets for general education. If such things as television and social disorder make it difficult to capture and hold the attention of students, then what and how they are taught is of little consequence. What matters is the intensity put into teaching them.

We could do worse than reduce classes from the typical twenty to thirty students down to ten. This would mean hiring more teachers and our public budgets tell us there is no available money. A more important point is there’ll be even less money in a society of functionally illiterate citizens.

How much does an unemployed teacher or an underemployed, university-educated potential teacher really cost the state if integrated accounting methods are used? There are the direct social costs; the loss of long-term investment in their training; the removal of their powers of consumption from the economy, and of their contribution to property values. Does all that add up to less than the salary of a teacher? This is not a question which our systems of public accounting can entertain. They refuse any inclusive weighting of our profit-and-loss situation.

The conclusion of our sophisticated system is that we cannot afford to educate properly our citizenry. We know that this is a suicidal and lunatic policy position. What we are doing, therefore, is passively accepting the conclusion of lunatics.

John Ralston Saul The Doubter's Companion

This sums up my feeling on the general problem. Personally, it frightens me to think that more and more kids who aren't fortunate enough to fit inside 'the norms' are going to thrown out. To have their lives stunted because they don't belong in some perfectly logical system that makes no mistakes. Just like me.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree on the issues facing the system as it exists. Constant pressure to reduce costs has results, and not ones most people would support if they really examined the long-term effects. An il-educated population makes less money; a population that makes less money pays less to the tax man; smaller tax income across the population means higher percentage tax burden for each individual.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Here's an interesting article... and idea... about education reform...




HOW TO FIX EDUCATION:
ABOLISH THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

By: Murray Sabrin

Public education, or more accurately government education, is one of America's sacred cows. Even among most suburban conservative Republicans who send their children to private schools, public education is considered "untouchable". There is virtually no organized opposition to the double whammy an increasing number of families face--paying for their children's private school tuition and paying property and/or income taxes to support the public school establishment.

Instead of tinkering with the current public education structure, we should first get the federal government out of local education decision making, and that means abolishing the Department of Education. Unfortunately, President Bush has increased federal involvement in education, a major policy goal of both the Democrats and the National Education Association. Although they have criticized some of the president's education policies, they support unequivocally the federal government's role in paying for local school operations. And we all know, with federal dollars come federal mandates and oversight, and that's why the federal government should not be involved in education--public or private.

At the state and local levels, local school boards, local administrators, principals, and teachers should make education decisions, not state education commissions. This means abolishing state education departments, eliminating another useless bureaucracy, and saving the taxpayers more money.

At the local level, the consumers of public education should pay for the operation of their local schools. This could be in the form of tuition, user fees or other methods--grants, contributions, etc. And of course, these expenses should be tax deductible from federal taxes, just as property taxes are deductible now. In other words, the tax burden on senior citizens, childless couples and single homeowners would be reduced. Finally, the consumers of education would foot the education bill, just as families pay out-of-pocket for municipal pools and recreation facilities.

Americans are used to paying user fees. We have state toll roads. Americans pay out-of-pocket for postal services. No one is suggesting we have a "free" postal office, funded by taxpayers.

The major opposition to education user fees is the age-old question, "What about the poor"? Education is "different". Education is supposed to be the social glue that binds the citizenry in the glorious democracy experiment. Therefore, government funded education brings together children of low income, middle income and upper income families to share a pluralistic learning experience. The historical record challenges the romantic notion that education is primarily about learning. Public education is about controlling youngsters and molding them to become obedient citizens serving the state.

Given the cost of urban education and the dismal performance of students, you would think policymakers would demand a change in the way education is structured in America. For example, in Camden, New Jersey, only 10% of public school students graduate from high school. In other words, the Camden public school system has a 90% failure rate, and yet the New Jersey Supreme Court has mandated that state aid be increased for urban schools so these districts can spend at least or more than the per capita expenditures of the wealthiest suburban districts. In short, suburban taxpayers are paying for their children's education as well as the education of urban families' children. This is unfair.

The failure of urban public education confirms Peter Drucker's observation that "nonprofits spend far less for results than governments spend for failures". The solution for urban education can be summed up as follows: turn over the schools to the teachers, administrators and parents, so they can become independent nonprofits. This would force urban schools to address educational issues without government bureaucrats looking over their shoulder. And if they continue to perform poorly under teacher-administrator-parent governance, parents could then turn to homeschooling, organized around community cooperatives.

The transition to a student-family oriented schooling experience will take several years. If we don't start soon, another generation of urban youngsters will fail to learn the basic skills to become fully integrated into the American mainstream. And taxpayers will be forced to continue to pay for another failed government program.

 

[Sex and Death]

Lets just through the baby out with the bathwater and hope it can survive in the wild.


Well actually you made up that alleged quote at the end but I don't mind.

But, you did expend some effort in your attempt to redicule my thoughts as if they were far out into space, whereas the real answer to what the 'alternative' to forced, tax supported education is merely the free market place.


"...Private schools which a vast number of families would never be able to afford?..."

You know, you and others say that as if it were fact and so obvious to everyone that even the blind should see it. That the free market penalizes the poor. Actually, it is just the opposite. The free market provides lower prices and quality services to all levels of society through efficiency and supply and demand.

So, I refute your assertion, totally and suggest that a free market place for education would offer better and more education and that people would quickly learn to choose those sources that provided the education they desire for their children.

And somehow, you and many others seem to think that children are a resource of society to be managed and harvested quite like trees or mines, which you also seem to 'claim' as public property.

Won't you socialist assholes ever learn? YOU DON'T OWN THE WORLD, YOU DON'T OWN THE RESOURCES!

Land, trees, mines, lakes, rivers, forests, minerals underground are all real property. In a free nation, individuals own those resources. In a free nation, peoples rights to raise their children as they choose are protected, not abridged by socialist dreamers and planners.

"...Leave it to a NeoCon to make teaching tolerance to be a bad thing. And if parents are in fact unwilling to teach anything about sexual behavior, equality or sanitation, then the child should in fact have a place he or she CAN learn such things..."

I can almost see your self righteous smirk as the Martin Luther King group continues to protest with middle finger raised at the world of the whities. That same smirk for the femi-nazi's who have basically destroyed the family unit.

I call into open question your success in forcing integration of ethnic and racial minorities, I fail to see what great good you have accomplished when a city like New Orleans is 68 percent black. I fail to see your success in the feminine quest for 'equal rights' when half of all marriages fail and half of the children never know their father.

So gloat and smirk your silly self into oblivion all the while thinking you have done or support some great movement. In essence, you have destroyed the best parts of a culture by your 'social planning' and enforced morality. White women reproduce at a rate of 1.2 percent, not even replacement value while blacks and hispanics are up around 4 to 5 percent.

Congratulations!

You left wingers disgust me.


amicus...

Amicus, I deeply admire your fierceness and backbone, but I am sad for your compartmentalized heart.

If you could only learn to use your powers for good! <grin>

I agree with your observations and criticisms, but I do not agree with your conclusions. You do seem, however, to be one of the very few in this dialogue willing to ake action, to pull up your sleeves and do the dirty work.

You're an asshole, but I would work with you in a heartbeat. We could accomplish much.

People seem to like to label others around here. I guess that is one way to champion mediocrity and keep things safe, comfortable and non-threatening.

I called this a dialogue earlier, but it really isn't, is it...it seems mostly to be a series of monologues.

The school system in our country is an abject failure, yet no one seems to want to do anything differently. Perhaps we should trade in our Eagle for a Sleeping Dog so we can continue to let it lie.

 

[Guest]

Amicus, I deeply admire your fierceness and backbone, but I am sad for your compartmentalized heart.

If you could only learn to use your powers for good! <grin>

I agree with your observations and criticisms, but I do not agree with your conclusions. You do seem, however, to be one of the very few in this dialogue willing to ake action, to pull up your sleeves and do the dirty work.

You're an asshole, but I would work with you in a heartbeat. We could accomplish much.

People seem to like to label others around here. I guess that is one way to champion mediocrity and keep things safe, comfortable and non-threatening.

I called this a dialogue earlier, but it really isn't, is it...it seems mostly to be a series of monologues.

The school system in our country is an abject failure, yet no one seems to want to do anything differently. Perhaps we should trade in our Eagle for a Sleeping Dog so we can continue to let it lie.

In defense of the "labels" that have been placed on people?

We've heard the rhetoric before.

Over and over again.

It gets old.

You're fairly new to the fray, S&D. Check back to some of ami's older posts and you'll understand why many in the AH have him on ignore.

 

[rgraham666]

Sigh.

I happen to believe that we owe a certain level of duty to each other, society at large, and indeed, our species and the planet we live on.

Others do not.

I can't prove I'm right, not scientifically, not philosophically, not economically. But I have faith.

I do know that places where there is minimum or non-existent obligation, both historically and at present, are very unpleasant places to live. Places where ignorance, hatred and death play freely.

I prefer what we've got. And I'll fight to keep it.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Lets just through the baby out with the bathwater and hope it can survive in the wild.

Well actually you made up that alleged quote at the end but I don't mind.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't claiming you said that. If that was how you read it, it was unintentional.
It was my interpretation of your stance.

But, you did expend some effort in your attempt to redicule my thoughts as if they were far out into space, whereas the real answer to what the 'alternative' to forced, tax supported education is merely the free market place.

"...Private schools which a vast number of families would never be able to afford?..."

You know, you and others say that as if it were fact and so obvious to everyone that even the blind should see it. That the free market penalizes the poor. Actually, it is just the opposite. The free market provides lower prices and quality services to all levels of society through efficiency and supply and demand.

So, I refute your assertion, totally and suggest that a free market place for education would offer better and more education and that people would quickly learn to choose those sources that provided the education they desire for their children.

But you fail to explain how the working poor will be able to send children to these private schools. Competition may may the existing private school system more reasonable for a number of middle class families, but if a family is truly poor, do we simply deny them a chance to educate their children? I know you wouldn't agree to some kind of assistance program, because that might be seen as a socio-economic program and would be political obligated to resist. You attack the idea of a tax supported school run by a beuracracy. You would rather individual families pay more to send their kids to schools run by private entities not answerable to anyone. I fail to see how this is by definition an improvement.

And somehow, you and many others seem to think that children are a resource of society to be managed and harvested quite like trees or mines, which you also seem to 'claim' as public property.

You seem to equate a public desire to educate children with the destruction of natrual habitats. Interesting.

Won't you socialist assholes ever learn? YOU DON'T OWN THE WORLD, YOU DON'T OWN THE RESOURCES!

Land, trees, mines, lakes, rivers, forests, minerals underground are all real property. In a free nation, individuals own those resources. In a free nation, peoples rights to raise their children as they choose are protected, not abridged by socialist dreamers and planners.

Parents HAVE options on how to raise their children. They can teach them whatever morality/ethics they want. They can send them to public school, those that can afford to can home-school their kids or send them to private schools. You have an aversion to anyone BUT a child's parents influencing that child's behavior. We are part of a society. Friends, families, industry and yes, the government, are all going to have some kind of input. That evil government and society that also tells parents they can't abuse their kids, if that is their preferred method of raising.

I agree with one thing you said. Children should not be seen as property. They are a responsibility. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone on either side of the political fence who don't think that families should have an opportunity to educate their children. Most of them seem to want a better public education system rather than an abandonment of it. But you don't really care. Anyone who disagrees with you is labeled an "asshole" or incompetent.

I can almost see your self righteous smirk as the Martin Luther King group continues to protest with middle finger raised at the world of the whities. That same smirk for the femi-nazi's who have basically destroyed the family unit.

Someone promotes equality, you interpret it as an insult. Your second comment is a nice example of dramitization not based in reality.

[QUOTEI call into open question your success in forcing integration of ethnic and racial minorities, I fail to see what great good you have accomplished when a city like New Orleans is 68 percent black. I fail to see your success in the feminine quest for 'equal rights' when half of all marriages fail and half of the children never know their father.[/QUOTE]

So if it would help keep marriages together and dissuade single-parenthood, you'd like to see the idea of equal rights for women and/or minorities dissolved and dissuaded? You would promote "seperate but equal" if it might bring the divorce rate down? To me, that is a monsterous concept.

So gloat and smirk your silly self into oblivion all the while thinking you have done or support some great movement. In essence, you have destroyed the best parts of a culture by your 'social planning' and enforced morality. White women reproduce at a rate of 1.2 percent, not even replacement value while blacks and hispanics are up around 4 to 5 percent.

Congratulations!

You left wingers disgust me.

amicus...

I would say right-wingers disgust me, but that's not entirely true. There are a number of conservatives that seem quite reasonable. You are not one of them.
You are one of those NeoCons that have nothing to do but promote and spew hatred at anyone who doesn't agree with you.

You seem to attack attempts to encourage social change as a bad thing, as if maintaining the status quo is unto itself desireable. Attempts to improve society are not always well enacted or successful. But if things aren't working, these attempts must be made. We have not corrected many social problems, but we have made improvements. The very great parts of our culture that you so heartily espouse were brought about by the types of social changes and dreamers that you so vehemently condemn. And morality is an ever-changing thing. There was a time that keeping minorities in chains and women barefoot and pregnant whether that's what they wanted or not were morally acceptable. We now try to enforce ideas to the contrary. Oh horrible us.

You contend that white women having a lower birth rate than minorities is also a bad thing. Why? I know how much the idea of white people being a minority must frighten you. The planet is heading towards a major population overload, and you criticize a racial group that is not contributing to that problem?

There have been a number of conservatives on this site. Colly is one, and I remember Joe Wordsworth. I didn't agree with him (a lot), but at least he lacked the mind-numbing venomousness that you exhibit towards the opposing viewpoints. Guess what? About half of this country is on the other side of the political spectrum from you, and yet you discount and insult them en masse. You are one of the most hate-filled, hate-promoting individuals I've ever had the misfortune to listen to. But at least with the click of a button, I won't have to anymore.

 

[amicus]

Here's an interesting article... and idea... about education reform...




HOW TO FIX EDUCATION:
ABOLISH THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

By: Murray Sabrin

Public education, or more accurately government education, is one of America's sacred cows. Even among most suburban conservative Republicans who send their children to private schools, public education is considered "untouchable". There is virtually no organized opposition to the double whammy an increasing number of families face--paying for their children's private school tuition and paying property and/or income taxes to support the public school establishment.

Instead of tinkering with the current public education structure, we should first get the federal government out of local education decision making, and that means abolishing the Department of Education. Unfortunately, President Bush has increased federal involvement in education, a major policy goal of both the Democrats and the National Education Association. Although they have criticized some of the president's education policies, they support unequivocally the federal government's role in paying for local school operations. And we all know, with federal dollars come federal mandates and oversight, and that's why the federal government should not be involved in education--public or private.

At the state and local levels, local school boards, local administrators, principals, and teachers should make education decisions, not state education commissions. This means abolishing state education departments, eliminating another useless bureaucracy, and saving the taxpayers more money.

At the local level, the consumers of public education should pay for the operation of their local schools. This could be in the form of tuition, user fees or other methods--grants, contributions, etc. And of course, these expenses should be tax deductible from federal taxes, just as property taxes are deductible now. In other words, the tax burden on senior citizens, childless couples and single homeowners would be reduced. Finally, the consumers of education would foot the education bill, just as families pay out-of-pocket for municipal pools and recreation facilities.

Americans are used to paying user fees. We have state toll roads. Americans pay out-of-pocket for postal services. No one is suggesting we have a "free" postal office, funded by taxpayers.

The major opposition to education user fees is the age-old question, "What about the poor"? Education is "different". Education is supposed to be the social glue that binds the citizenry in the glorious democracy experiment. Therefore, government funded education brings together children of low income, middle income and upper income families to share a pluralistic learning experience. The historical record challenges the romantic notion that education is primarily about learning. Public education is about controlling youngsters and molding them to become obedient citizens serving the state.

Given the cost of urban education and the dismal performance of students, you would think policymakers would demand a change in the way education is structured in America. For example, in Camden, New Jersey, only 10% of public school students graduate from high school. In other words, the Camden public school system has a 90% failure rate, and yet the New Jersey Supreme Court has mandated that state aid be increased for urban schools so these districts can spend at least or more than the per capita expenditures of the wealthiest suburban districts. In short, suburban taxpayers are paying for their children's education as well as the education of urban families' children. This is unfair.

The failure of urban public education confirms Peter Drucker's observation that "nonprofits spend far less for results than governments spend for failures". The solution for urban education can be summed up as follows: turn over the schools to the teachers, administrators and parents, so they can become independent nonprofits. This would force urban schools to address educational issues without government bureaucrats looking over their shoulder. And if they continue to perform poorly under teacher-administrator-parent governance, parents could then turn to homeschooling, organized around community cooperatives.

The transition to a student-family oriented schooling experience will take several years. If we don't start soon, another generation of urban youngsters will fail to learn the basic skills to become fully integrated into the American mainstream. And taxpayers will be forced to continue to pay for another failed government program.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


An interesting article from a slightly different perspective I guess...


I am pretty much suspicious of 'non profit' organizations, although it does appear the Red Cross may be an exception.

In general, I think people should receive compensation for their efforts, such as teachers and administrators, I do not see sufficient numbers volunteering their efforts on a regular basis to support a wide reaching educational system.

I think private enterprise would create a 'franchise' business, quite like Pizza Hut or McDonalds, and put a small school house in each area to meet the needs of those who live there.

But rather than have a 'plan' in mind, I would simply remove all restrictions, sit back and watch as the private market place met the demands voiced by the public, seems to me that is the only way to enjoy freedom of choice.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Well actually you made up that alleged quote at the end but I don't mind.

I wasn't claiming you said that. If that was how you read it, it was unintentional.
It was my interpretation of your stance.



But you fail to explain how the working poor will be able to send children to these private schools. Competition may may the existing private school system more reasonable for a number of middle class families, but if a family is truly poor, do we simply deny them a chance to educate their children? I know you wouldn't agree to some kind of assistance program, because that might be seen as a socio-economic program and would be political obligated to resist. You attack the idea of a tax supported school run by a beuracracy. You would rather individual families pay more to send their kids to schools run by private entities not answerable to anyone. I fail to see how this is by definition an improvement.



You seem to equate a public desire to educate children with the destruction of natrual habitats. Interesting.



Parents HAVE options on how to raise their children. They can teach them whatever morality/ethics they want. They can send them to public school, those that can afford to can home-school their kids or send them to private schools. You have an aversion to anyone BUT a child's parents influencing that child's behavior. We are part of a society. Friends, families, industry and yes, the government, are all going to have some kind of input. That evil government and society that also tells parents they can't abuse their kids, if that is their preferred method of raising.

I agree with one thing you said. Children should not be seen as property. They are a responsibility. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone on either side of the political fence who don't think that families should have an opportunity to educate their children. Most of them seem to want a better public education system rather than an abandonment of it. But you don't really care. Anyone who disagrees with you is labeled an "asshole" or incompetent.



Someone promotes equality, you interpret it as an insult. Your second comment is a nice example of dramitization not based in reality.



So if it would help keep marriages together and dissuade single-parenthood, you'd like to see the idea of equal rights for women and/or minorities dissolved and dissuaded? You would promote "seperate but equal" if it might bring the divorce rate down? To me, that is a monsterous concept.



I would say right-wingers disgust me, but that's not entirely true. There are a number of conservatives that seem quite reasonable. You are not one of them.
You are one of those NeoCons that have nothing to do but promote and spew hatred at anyone who doesn't agree with you.

You seem to attack attempts to encourage social change as a bad thing, as if maintaining the status quo is unto itself desireable. Attempts to improve society are not always well enacted or successful. But if things aren't working, these attempts must be made. We have not corrected many social problems, but we have made improvements. The very great parts of our culture that you so heartily espouse were brought about by the types of social changes and dreamers that you so vehemently condemn. And morality is an ever-changing thing. There was a time that keeping minorities in chains and women barefoot and pregnant whether that's what they wanted or not were morally acceptable. We now try to enforce ideas to the contrary. Oh horrible us.

You contend that white women having a lower birth rate than minorities is also a bad thing. Why? I know how much the idea of white people being a minority must frighten you. The planet is heading towards a major population overload, and you criticize a racial group that is not contributing to that problem?

There have been a number of conservatives on this site. Colly is one, and I remember Joe Wordsworth. I didn't agree with him (a lot), but at least he lacked the mind-numbing venomousness that you exhibit towards the opposing viewpoints. Guess what? About half of this country is on the other side of the political spectrum from you, and yet you discount and insult them en masse. You are one of the most hate-filled, hate-promoting individuals I've ever had the misfortune to listen to. But at least with the click of a button, I won't have to anymore.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~~~


Well, hello, evilalpaca...glad you got that all out and if it soothes you and allows you to continue along your merry way, then all the better.

I am sure I will not communicate this to you properly, but discussing issues with left wingers is quite like discussing issues with religious believers ( I am an atheist), one can never really get down to an issue, we spend all the time debating your beliefs.

It should not be a difficult thing to state that the use of force is an evil thing; on the surface, I would think that most agree with the statement.

Yet you proudly proclaim a righteous right to the use of force to accomplish your social goals and I find that obscene and evil.

You think it is just fine to tax the general population to support publically funded education, as you do it for the greater good of society. To me, it is the use of police power to confiscate wealth and earnings to satisfy your goals.

I am not an anarchist, I do support and defend the government to act and to tax to carry out its constitutional obligations such as a military, police and a court system. Those are clearly outlined and defined in our fundamental laws.

Since the beginning of our system, in 1789, there have been those of you who wish a wider governmental involvement in human affairs and those of us who have fought you, step by step.

It is usually your side that does the protests, the violence, the marches, the burning and destruction and your side that is venomous in your attacks. I thought you might like to know how it feels from the opposite side.

I find left wing morality and ethics utterly despiccable and without a rational foundation.

I could argue in a genteel manner and make friends and influence people, perhaps, but I much prefer calling it as I see it; liberals sacrifice the individual for the so called 'greater good' without concern.

That needs to be pointed out, time and time again as an ethical and moral base that was once religiously oriented, is fading away and not being replaced by a rational ethic.

But, I tire...so...nevermind...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Amicus, I deeply admire your fierceness and backbone, but I am sad for your compartmentalized heart.

If you could only learn to use your powers for good! <grin>

I agree with your observations and criticisms, but I do not agree with your conclusions. You do seem, however, to be one of the very few in this dialogue willing to ake action, to pull up your sleeves and do the dirty work.

You're an asshole, but I would work with you in a heartbeat. We could accomplish much.

People seem to like to label others around here. I guess that is one way to champion mediocrity and keep things safe, comfortable and non-threatening.

I called this a dialogue earlier, but it really isn't, is it...it seems mostly to be a series of monologues.

The school system in our country is an abject failure, yet no one seems to want to do anything differently. Perhaps we should trade in our Eagle for a Sleeping Dog so we can continue to let it lie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps you might understand my tactic and style better if you knew that I am a 30 year veteran at talk radio and editorial writing in a competitive market.

You might also like to know that when I first came upon this forum, some two years ago, prior to the 2004 elections, it was a total Bush bash, with nary a single voice save Colly on the right. So, now at least, a rational voice appears now and then.

I also have several years of post graduate education and a few degrees tacked up on my walls, not that it matters, but the care and feeding of rabid liberals is not one of my strong points.

They should be safely locked away in padded cells so as not to harms themselves or others, like Christians, they are a dying breed, they just haven't been told yet.

smiles...

nice to make your acquaintance...


amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

Here's an interesting article... and idea... about education reform...




HOW TO FIX EDUCATION:
ABOLISH THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

By: Murray Sabrin
...
At the state and local levels, local school boards, local administrators, principals, and teachers should make education decisions, not state education commissions.
...

This is one major problem with the current educational system -- there is too much local input! There are at least 52 conflicting definitions of what constitutes "an education" -- and that doesn't even consider the variations within each of the States at the local school board level.

Local control -- and therefore local definitions of "an education" -- made a great deal of sense when the average student was unlikely to travel to find work and was unlikely to ever even speak to someone who wasn't raised and educated within fifty miles of their birthplace.

Local Control and parochial definitions of "an education" simply don't work in this Informaion Age where television and radio bring world events nd concerns into every home and the Internet allows constant interaction with people all over the world -- people who were educated under some other local authority's definition of "an education."

Nearly everyone involved in this discussion derided he Kansas School Board's recent attempt to make "Intelligent Design" a required part of their local science curriculim. Some people even based their derision on the disadvantage Kansas students would incur in competition with students from places where a more rational science curriculim was in place.

Can our modern, Global, society survive if we insist on maintaining the archaic principle of Local Control to define what constitutes "An Education?" Can the US, or any country, compete in the world markets if they don't educate their citizenry in a way the the majority of the rest of the world will recognise as "An Education?"

IMHO, before we can reform the educational system, we need to define just what constitutes "an education" -- at least in terms of the minimum amount of knowledge and skills that are needed to survive and function in the modern world. We need a SINGLE, global, definition to replace the hundreds or thousands of individual local definitions we are trying to deal with now.

Universal Public Education came into being because the old standards of apprentice-ship based "Education" were insufficient to deal with changes in technology and changes in the economy. The current system in the US, with it's emphasis on local control, isn't sufficient to deal with the technology and economy that high-school graduates will have to deal with.

 

[amicus]

This is one major problem with the current educational system -- there is too much local input! There are at least 52 conflicting definitions of what constitutes "an education" -- and that doesn't even consider the variations within each of the States at the local school board level.

Local control -- and therefore local definitions of "an education" -- made a great deal of sense when the average student was unlikely to travel to find work and was unlikely to ever even speak to someone who wasn't raised and educated within fifty miles of their birthplace.

Local Control and parochial definitions of "an education" simply don't work in this Informaion Age where television and radio bring world events nd concerns into every home and the Internet allows constant interaction with people all over the world -- people who were educated under some other local authority's definition of "an education."

Nearly everyone involved in this discussion derided he Kansas School Board's recent attempt to make "Intelligent Design" a required part of their local science curriculim. Some people even based their derision on the disadvantage Kansas students would incur in competition with students from places where a more rational science curriculim was in place.

Can our modern, Global, society survive if we insist on maintaining the archaic principle of Local Control to define what constitutes "An Education?" Can the US, or any country, compete in the world markets if they don't educate their citizenry in a way the the majority of the rest of the world will recognise as "An Education?"

IMHO, before we can reform the educational system, we need to define just what constitutes "an education" -- at least in terms of the minimum amount of knowledge and skills that are needed to survive and function in the modern world. We need a SINGLE, global, definition to replace the hundreds or thousands of individual local definitions we are trying to deal with now.

Universal Public Education came into being because the old standards of apprentice-ship based "Education" were insufficient to deal with changes in technology and changes in the economy. The current system in the US, with it's emphasis on local control, isn't sufficient to deal with the technology and economy that high-school graduates will have to deal with.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know, Wierd Harold, I was not around mid 19th century, 1850's or so, when government decided to enter into private education of its citizens, but, I do have kids and grandkids, today, who surf the internet, talk to people around the world and are quite aware of global requirements in terms of education.

It isn't so much that 'local control' is a necessity as opposed to federal control as the article defines it, but rather, the 'individual control' so that each person may seek and find his proper place in the education chain.

We do need mechanics who are content to work on american made cars, of japanese imports or even foreign vanity vehicles. We also need mechanics to service farm equipment, farmers to farm, dairymen to dairy, truck drivers to drive and a whole host of trade and service people to keep the engine of economy working.

I suggest they may need a different education that a student seeking a medical degree or a law degree; a different education from those seeking to do science or to teach; a different education than those who wish to sing or dance or write. The conveyor belt, warehousing system of manditory, public supported education simply cannot handle this diversity.

We need something better, something more capable of handling the demand of the student.

What better vehicle than the market place?

amicus....

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Two most interesting posts by Colleen and Shanglan...

I understand your point of view Colly. However, the area of 'public utilities' has long been a difficult area to comprehend with a free enterprise system as a base.

It troubled the early development of crude oil transportation in Pennsylvania, (an interesting history) it was extremely troublesome in the beginnings of the railroad system, and electrical power and distribution, along with natural gas, water and sewer services.

There are problems with monopolies, some just 'perceived' problems and not real ones as competition always thins out the field.

In a formal study of economics, there are dozens of theories and models about how such conflicts could be resolve and yet maintain a 'mostly free' economy.

It goes even deeper with books like Upton Sinclairs attack on the meat packing industry, The Jungle, I think it was called.

Advances in technology also create problems and difficulties, as Shanglan points out, times change and new methodologies come into play.

Because macro economics is so complex, it appears to many that the apparent solution to all the problems is to bascially 'nationalize' the entire economy so that it can be managed with specific goals in mind.

That has been tried in many places and inevitably fails.

A 'mixed' economy, in many varied ways has also been tried, but seems always to trend towards a more controlled system, eventually failing as the command economies do.

I unfailing advocate a 'free' economy because it reflects the basic philosophy of individual freedom that I hold as basic to a civilized society.

You say that a free enterprise system is not always the best avenue to follow, I must assert that a free enterprise system is the only avenue if one values human individual freedom.

I do not fully understand the technology you explained and why it cannot function in a free market place, but I suggest that wireless broadband will moot the question in a very short time.

Shanglan, I need to read your post again, but in advocating a private enterprise educational system, I do not necessarily embrace the 'apprenticeship' concept as a solution to those young people who may not wish to continue an education and choose to work instead.

It is not just an ideology or 'belief' that brings me always to the defense of the free exchange of goods and services between peoples, it is rather a philosophical axiom to me that freedom is essential to human dignity, I have never doubted that and doubt I ever will.

So, Colly, Shang...whatever problems emerge in a free enterprise system, logic and reason tells me that 'free' people can resolve those issues without resorting to the use of force.


amicus...

having worked for them, I can say pretty comfortably that wireless broadband won't replace land lines. For all it's utility, nothing is as reliable as copper, even the army still has wire dogs who string lines for field phones. Despite all the high tech resources, copper cannot be blocked, is not subject to electronically generated interference, or atmosphereic conditions. And it's a lot cheaper than wireless to boot.

the technology isn't all that complex. Every phone in your home gets dial tone from the co (central office). Dialtone is nothing more than a dc charge, about -40 on the voltmeter. Dialtoneis carried in pairs. that's two copper wires, no thicker than the wires in say, your toaster. Multiple pairs are strung together in a cable. Standard is like fifty pairs for a trunk line, up to 3600 for a feeder.

When you subscribe, the telephone company asigns a Dt to your number. That number is run through a computer and appears on a set of posts on the co side of the frame. When a frameman gets your order, he will make a cross connect, from your asigned frameside posts, to the ssigned posts on the other side. Your order then goes to a linesman. He will go out to a cross box in your area. this is basically an intrrupt interface, where a certain set of pairs from the feeder line are separated and taken to posts on one side of the box, and the pairs on the trunk line to your neighborhood are on the other. LDMC will have told him what pair is free in the trunk line so he can put your DT on it and get it to your home. He will check the line and if it's clean (which it may or may not be, the odds being better the newer your subdivision is) he makes a cross connect and now your Dt appears in the trunk line. He goes to your house, opens the nearest box, and if all has gone right, the pair he put your Dt on appears there. He then runs a drop line from the box, to the interface on your home. Makes a cross connect in your box and viola, phone service.

If it all goes well, it's a ten to thirty minute proceedure, depending on distance and how complicated it is to get a drop line to your home. If it goes wrong, it can take a day or two.

There are natural problems, like shorts, opens, swinging shorts, etc. There are also massive problems that occur with records. Adding sprint & MCI & your local chop rate provider, multiplies the recordkeeping errors by tenfold. Adding two or thre or four machines generating DT quadruples the electricty used, complicates the problems at the frame and turns LDMC into a quagmire.

For all of the trouble, multiple providers dosen't really save the consumer much at all. Ma Bell used to give you your local calls for free or almost free. They made their money on the Long distance.

Now your Local provider is no longer assured of being your long distance provider, so they have to charge you for the DT, and the line maintenance, and all the overhead they used to write off since they knoew they would be getting your Long distance bussiness and that's really lucrative. Sprint, Mci, etc. don't do it any better or any cheaper, they just make it more convient, since you get one bill for services.

the only way they could do it better would be to string their own new lines. New cable is better than old cable, but you can imagine the costs involved, not to mention miles of cable not being used and a rat's nest of cables on every utiltiy pole. the only way they can do it cheaper, is to bundle your local & LD, because they are paying a flat rate to the baby bell for somany pairs, reguardless of how many of them they use.

They can't promise you crap for service, because they have to depend on the baby bell's servicemen. Obviously, the baby bell isn't going to make itself less profitable by giving another carrier primacy in service calls.

Hopefully that explains it a little better.